User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 5:31 pm, 17 May 2024 UTC [refresh].

Thank you!

Thank you very much for bringing the lack of the appropriate citation for the article Thrombosis prophylaxis. I embarrassed to say that I rarely use public domain text and didn't realize attribution was necessary. Is there a 'format' for doing so? Is it a citation that is usually located in the reference section? Thank you again, Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Barbara: you can use {{PD-notice}} or others from Attribution templates, where there are also specialized ones for particular sources & licences.—Odysseus1479 10:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of copyright theft

Earlier today, you left a message accusing me of committing copyright theft regarding the article on Hans Klok.

The website to which you refer actually took much of its information, including the parts to which you refer, from an earlier version of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, and so they are the ones who have committed copyright theft. If you check back through the edit history of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, you will see that the information you claim that I have stolen from the site you reference was originally added to Wikipedia on November 1st 2007, while the domain for the site you claim I stole the information from was not even created until July 12th 2008 (see http://dawhois.com/site/all-about-magicians.com.html). Therefore, the information's appearance on Wikipedia predates the creation of the site you accuse me of plagiarizing, and the link I have supplied proves that they are the one who has stolen the information verbatim from here, not the other way around. As a result, I suggest that you check back through previous edits of pages and get your facts right before you wrongly accuse people of copyright theft, and apologize immediately for making false accusations!! 95.147.118.85 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Checking back, I see the content was in the article for quite a while (added in 2007 and removed on February 17, 2014). I did check the old revisions but obviously I did not look far enough back. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Similarly, you performed a whole sale deletion of Women's health alleging copyright violation. Please revert your changes. I assure you it was not copied. It is possible that the some of the numerous sources that were used in writing this section borrowed from each other, however that is impossible to verify due to your deletions. If you restore the article I am quite happy to carefully review the text for any possible similarities. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Information on STIs was copied from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs110/en/. The parts that were copied were the bullet points starting "Mother-to-child transmission of STIs..." and "STIs such as gonorrhoea and chlamydia...". I have temporarily undone the revision-deletion so that you can compare your prose with the source web page. Here is the copyvios report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I will take a close look at this. As a university professor I take plagiarism very seriously. I also happen to work with WHO. A fact sheet is a fact sheet, and facts are facts. As far as I can see, a number of peer reviewed articles that cite this source follow it very closely. Thankyou. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The material actually appears twice in your version, so it looks to me like you were in the middle of doing your amendments and got distracted and hit "save" before you were actually finished. I am off to work now, TTYL. — Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

just came to the same conclusion - as I often do - I placed the original on the page and wrote my paraphrase above it. Actually what happened was a browser crash, I recall, and the original got saved accidentally - thanks for catching this - easily fixed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig looks like a useful tool - I should use it more often :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Greetings from Nova Scotia) Too many false positives in my brief experience, it needs to flag something more than an occasional common phrase, and stop flagging citations!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and for fixing this up. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks for erasing my page, not! copyright my ass

excuse my french but go fuck yourself i took time to just translate this page which i do believe is important. any wikipedia has become a pure joke! Copyright form wikipedia? you joking me, people are free contributors! man, i can't believe that! i'd already stop writing because of the constant censorship but within 1 year it has become even worth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmvernay (talk • contribs)

I see the only place where we have interacted is on the new page Franck Lepage, where I asked you to please in the future provide the required attribution when copying licensed material from one wiki to another. Not sure which page you think got erased, but it was not this one. Sorry you found that so upsetting, but I think you are over-reacting a bit. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit. He needs to relax and spell check, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pence

Since you notified the editor recently of copyright issues, I thought I'd ask you at what point this sort of edit becomes disruptive. He/she has added content repeatedly with sources that make no mention of Pence. I've posted to his/her Talk page explaining that this would be considered WP:original research, but he/she continues to do so. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Permission to fix copyright issue requested

Hi Diannaa. I am asking again about MORT (long non-coding RNA). You say that in the opening segment there is still a huge overlap and a lot of too-close paraphrasing and that you are unable to find any record of TomStar81 commenting that the article might be ready. The TomStar81 conversation is here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 June 30. I want to fix the opening segment, and any other parts that may need it, but as the article is now it is not supposed to be edited by anybody else than "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". - Do I have a permission to edit? - ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No. You are not supposed to edit the article directly while to copyvio core template is in place. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Rewriting content say that what you are supposed to do is propose a rewrite on a subpage. For this article the subpage should be created at Talk:MORT (long non-coding RNA)/Temp. Then, one of the administrators or clerks who works at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page will assess your rewrite and see if it is adequate to address the copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerhard Medicus

Hi Dianna, Wondering if you can take another look at my revised content and references for keyword: Gerhard Medicus. This was deleted last December due to inadequate reference build-out. I feel it's much better now and might be ready... or close. Thanks, Behal509 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Behal509: What you should do is submit the draft using the {{AFC submission}} template so that an experienced person can review it. I have no experience in this area. — Diannaa (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Congolese anthem

About the recent edit on the Congolese anthem, I checked the French article on the anthem. It was written by Simon-Pierre Boka. According to the article on the author of the anthem, he died in September 7, 2006. Are the lyrics public domain after he died? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No. In Congo the author has to be dead 50 years before their works fall into the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor

Hello. You appear to have deleted my user page per CSD G8 because it redirected to a nonexistent page. Please know that I didn't do this. There is a 99% chance this is vandalism. Please undelete my page. Thx! AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the mistake. I sometimes do Twinkle batch delete of the items listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace. It appeared on that list because someone placed a broken redirect at the top of the page. I don't remember viewing your page so I must have included it the batch by mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Website copyright issues

1 Main website now carries message as per wikipedia guidlines 2 All html pages have the copyright footnote deleted as per your suggestion 3 If Sitush or any other user does their homework by visiting/studying/reading any of the numerous sources that I cite in the articles then they will see that the material is not only reliable but important. Greyhound Racing remains even to this day as the second largest spectator sport in the UK and had very few articles relating to it. 4 I will now add on the homepage that the PDF pages are copyright free but find it hard to see that there is still an issue because it is clear that I own the website and that no copyright laws have been breached.Racingmanager (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Copyright free" is not the same thing as released under a CC-by-SA license. And there's no such thing as "copyright free" under the law; according to the terms of the Berne Convention, prose is copyright until specifically released under license or into the public domain. If you are releasing the PDFs into the public domain, it's better to use the phrase "public domain" rather than "copyright free". If you are releasing them under the terms of the CC-by-SA license, you need to say that. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/
• User talk:Sitush#Speedy deletion nomination
• User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Copyright issues

Barbara Hafer edits

Ah yes, you're absolutely right. As I edit and add/remove info, I copy&paste the info I'm using from the source, then add whatever I am adding, then delete the "copied material." Usually I remember but forgot to on that one! I'll make sure to add it the proper way. Thanks! Regards, MavsFan28 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CopyRight Issue

Hi, Diannaa, For the information regarding to SuperMap, I have contacted them to give me the permission to use the content on their website and they have sent an email to verify my use last week. I checked with them this morning, yet they got no reply. So can I use the information now or should I wait for them to get a reply first? Thanks Seanzhang1015 talk

The way it works is the copyright holder sends a permission email to the OTRS team. One of them assesses the email and verifies that the material has been released under a compatible license. This may take a while as they are experiencing a 60-day backlog. Regardless of the copyright issue, some of the material you copied from the corporate website (mission statement, values, etc) is not really suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lists of products are okay, but without the advertorial introduction. The wording in the history section is okay, and can be re-added once the OTRS ticket is processed. However, if you work for SuperMap, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I have placed some information on conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Relu Ram Punia

Could you take a look please? It appears to be a foundational copyvio from this forum post but the author there and here happens to be the same. The author is a serial image copyright violator on Commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Article was deleted as copyvio on June 12 under its former title Relu Ram Poonia and was re-created June 24 with more-or-less the same content at the title Relu Ram Punia. So I have deleted it. I have given the user a final warning for copy vio and will watch his contribs. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of my Sandbox

Perhaps you can explain to me why you deleted my page Smallchief/Sandbox3.

During my 6 years at Wikipedia and 20,000-plus edits on 1,000-plus articles I have used sandboxes to work on new articles and store material I might want to use in the future. I thought that was why sandboxes exist. So, why did you delete it? What harm did the deleted page do?

I don't recall what material if any I had on Smallchief/Sandbox3, but whatever it was it is now lost. Smallchief (talk 07:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What I deleted was User:Smallchief/Sandbox 3, which was a redirect to User:Chiribaya, a page that does not exist. You had moved your sandbox to that location on June 22, where it was deleted on July 23 by another admin, as there is no such user. I have restored it and moved it back to your sandbox 3. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently added content - copyright issue

Hello, regarding the recent edits to Paralympic classification articles and the message you posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:62.157.163.42&oldid=730809608&diff=cur I work with the International Paralympic Committee. We are trying to update the information here in Wikipedia, and make it accurate and up to date. Therefore, I wanted to kindly ask you if you could undo the changes you made to these articles. I appreciate it. HernanGold (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't accept copyright material without the express written release of the content under a compatible license by the copyright holder. There's instructions how to do it at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

OmniBot, which is operated by Omni Flames, is doing "General Fixes" but according to the Tasks section on the bot's user page, it appears that was "withdrawn by operator". Is this bot operating without the proper permissions or am I missing something? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Neutralhomer: OmniBot was approved for trial. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89: I was going by the first entry in the "Tasks" section of the bot's user page. My mistake there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Wondering if we have a sock and/or a paid editor here: [1] and [2]. Started the same day, similar styles, similar errors, have the feel of paid puff pieces. The articles themselves so far are GNG in my book, but the cleanup needed is noticable, I don't want to get into "two for one" editing here. Your thoughts? (or actions...). I can start an SPI, but if you feel you can act faster, go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Looks like we have an answer here: multiple interns at the equestrian magazine The Plaid Horse. I will lay some COI {{Uw-paid1}} templates on the talk pages of the two you have discovered so far. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Undisclosed Plaid Editing? Crow^Caw 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Remunerated by check, no doubt.—Odysseus1479 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see a pattern here --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL! I am so glad we all had fun here! And thanks for your help. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

Hullo Diannaa,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but it took quite a while for me to understand how to do so.

As I did not keep a record of what you may have deleted I am somewhat puzzled by your message.I get the impression that whatever it was it may have had inverted commas around part of it. Can you please elaborate on the thrust of your message?

Regards, Barry Corr Ngarndhi (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PS My user name is "Ngarndhi", not "Ngamdhi".

The copyright violation was detected by a bot as the same content appears in this document which was published July 22, 2015. It's the sentence that begins "In June 1804 a handful of settlers confronted..." — Diannaa (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential copyvio?

Hi Diannaa, could you please check? The copyio detector report is linked here Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

The content has been present in our article since November 2007. The Wayback Machine has archived the potential source page on July 15, 2007, coming up with a 92.5 per cent overlap. So yeah, this is a copy vio, added on November 10, 2007. Has to stay out. — Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Historic paint analysis

Is it possible to get the edit summaries back? After your moved the page back to the proper title casing, the old edit summaries disappeared. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you mean edit summaries, I think you mean diffs. The old revisions were intentionally hidden so as to remove the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right about difs. And... Oh. Ok then. I didn't make the connection. Gracias. :) —PermStrump(talk) 03:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

NGC 1854

Diannaa I will definitely do that in the future and don't want to be banned from editing Wikipedia which I like to do.D Eaketts (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for the HP LoadRunner page

Hello Diannaa, you wrote: "All or some of your addition(s) to HP LoadRunner has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." I'm the Product Marketing Manager for this product so no copyright problems - how can I prove that? Thanks GasWiki (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material under license, they need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.Regardless of the copyright issue, not everything that is suitable for inclusion on the corporate website is suitable for our encyclopedia. Product listings, how-to instructions, and material worded like an advertisement is not the kind of content we are looking for.

Another problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some more information about conflict of interest and paid editing on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrewthoma17

Hey Diannaa, maybe you can help with this user. I'm not sure if they very 1)new and not sure how things work, 2)are posting on the wrong page, or 3)are just wasting time and vandalising. Their edits show 4 edits (their only edits) that could go for any of three. I added a Warn1 message with a polite addition to it explaining the problems with their edits. I am trying to AGF, but I would appreciate a second set of eyes on this. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on July 28, 2016 (UTC)

It almost looks like they are trying to promote something. Or possibly they are a very young and very new. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and what that is, I haven't the slightest clue. I'm was thinking it was a little bit of both. That's why I wanted the second set of eyes. :) I'll keep an eye on the user. They haven't updated since my Warn1 warning, so hopefully that got the message across. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08 on July 29, 2016 (UTC)

HRWF block

Hi. You blocked 'User:HRWF'. I suspect they reincarnated as 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVR17' to edit the same article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Without_Frontiers

There are no references except the individual/orgs own website. I removed a load of linkspam. I wonder if the topic page is legitimate at all? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.10 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What we've got here is the latest single-purpose acct to edit the article. Whether they're the same person or a different person is unknown but I am not going to bother our busy check-users, since EVR17 has not edited since May. I have removed some copy vio, copied from their own website. This has also been a perennial problem with this article. As is notability, as you say. I am not very good at judging notability so I am going to start with an A7 speedy deletion and we will see. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Metacompiler - Copyright issues

Hello again. I got your email of the removed text. We talked about block quoting. It seams the removed questionable text was block quoted and referanced. Can you be specific as to the problem. If it is a problem then there are several other articles I took as examples on referancing copyrighted meterial. The lexeme example I gave previously. The difference is the copyrighted meterial being wholly contained in the referance. I am confused.

See lexical analysis - References and

Does using blockquotes make a difference:

(Redacted)

If the above is OK then why not the following?

(Redacted)

On a side note. Using the android app I can only append here.Steamerandy (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Problematic material and copyright violations on this wiki can never be solved by adding more problematic content or copyright violations. As we have more than 5 million articles, there's always going to be more examples, and adding more only makes things worse. Placing material in a block quote or inside quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. Short, properly attributed quotations are okay, but that's not what you're proposing here, as I already told you on July 19, when I said "Short properly attributed quotations are okay. So what you should to is introduce the block quote by adding a short introduction, making the attribution clear. For example, "Aho et al define 'lexeme' as follows:" and then place the block quote. In other words, what you need to do is make it clearer by stating outright that you are quoting and who you are quoting, and make your quotation shorter (or better yet, paraphrase the material and avoid the copyright issue altogether). — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. The META II document I quoted from is in public domain by law being created at a government facility. It was in public domain by law from the time it was created at a government facility. Namely UCLA. If you have any questions you may contact the legal department at Walworth Publishing were I worked. I am now retired.Steamerandy (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Content of the UCLA websites is marked as being © The Regents of the University of California. The source web page http://www.ibm-1401.info/Meta-II-schorre.pdf is not marked as being copyright, but it does not need to be. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. D.V. Schorre's paper cannot in my opinion be construed as being a work of the US government, which would make it in the public domain. If you wish to pursue this further I suggest you contact the Wikimedia legal department at legal@wikimedia.org . — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Double-checking your work, I hope you don't mind. The article in question is not copyright by the University of California. The copyright is owned by the ACM. The researcher who wrote the article was working at the UCLA Computing Facility at the time of publication per the byline on the article, but that paper was presented at an ACM National Conference and subsequently published in their official Proceedings for the Conference. The ACM, the leading association for computer professionals and academics, clearly shows the copyright and publishing date (per law) on their web page where they sell this article. There are wild PDF versions of this article on the internet, which the editor had referenced, but I have heard the ACM defends and enforces their copyrights whenever possible. The ACM reference and copyright can be found here:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808896

— 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I also called up the legal department of the University of California to ask their opinion, and they informally assured me that the Regents of UC own copyrights, trademarks, and patents, and that they enforce their rights of ownership. They said that the public domain rule applies to Federal government work, but even that is not absolute, for example the Post Office owns the copyrights on stamp art. So the editor is confused about asserting public domain versus copyright rights. — 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You assistance please.

Not really sure how best to deal with this but there is a user who has self-identified as being the representative of Fred Lynn and is actively changing his page. When I reverted his changes, he left multiple messages on my talk page ([3] & [4]). Even stating that if needed he would sign up for multiple accounts to make sure his edits stuck. Can you advise? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo has already been in use on other websites such as here, so I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. An OTRS ticket is required. The user has been blocked for 31 hrs by a different admin. — Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Something screwy happened

Hey Diannaa, something screwy happened. Earlier today I added a couple of comments to your copyright discussion of 20:42, 28 July 2016.

When I went back to proofread what I had written, both of my edits and your 20:42 edit had disappeared from your Talk page! Not only that, but 5 edits altogether had disappeared, 2 of yours and 3 of mine.

The page seems to be reverted to the edit just prior to your 20:42 edit, that is, to the 19:56 edit of Steamerandy.

Yet the "View history" page for your Talk page shows all 5 missing edits and no undo's or reversions. It's as if your changes and my changes never happened. But the history page confirms they did happen.

I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Did I screw something up? Did Wikipedia roll back something in the database and restore an old version of your Talk page?

I apologize in advance if I did screw something up, but all 5 edits were there, I swear. I went back and checked what I had written at least a couple of times, and I was only going back for a final proofread when I noticed the reversion to the 19:56 edit had taken place.

Wha hoppen?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter, especially if I did something wrong.

Cheers and keep up the good work :)

I will check here in case you post any updates on this screwy situation. Thanks :)

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. Everything seems to be back to the way it should be. But what happened?

Feel free to delete this whole section.

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What often happens when you view pages whilst you are not logged in is you are served a cached version of the page. For the best and easiest viewing experience, I suggest creating an account, as then you are always served the most recent revision. If you are not interested in creating an account, you can manually purge the server cache by clicking the "edit" tab and replacing the word "edit" in the url with the word "purge". A couple of the super busy pages like WP:ANI and WP:AN have built-in purge buttons. — Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, thank you so much. I only do very casual editing and reference checking here on Wikipedia, so I never figured I'd need an account. My bad. I will look into creating an account first thing in the morning, when I'm awake enough to create an ok user name. People here seem to imbue their name choices with some flair. I usually avoid such things, as well as the rest of social media and its customs. I will make an exception for Wikipedia. Again, thank you so much for the explanation, and I apologize for any problems I may have caused.—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All the best usernames are taken! you might have trouble finding something excellent. See you later, — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Superbird-6 alternate name.

Dear Diannaa, you've made a change in the Superbird-6 redirect where you reverted my change. From Gunter's Space Page Superbird-6 and Superbird-7 state quite clearly that Superbird 6 is Superbird A2 and Superbird 7 is Superbird C2. Also SatBeams and even the Manufacturer's page on the Superbird-7 states that it is Superbird-C2. JSAT own fleet report states that Superbird C2 was launched on 2008, just like Superbird-7. So I'm very worried if I've missed some important source that states the opposite. Regards, — Baldusi (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have an article Superbird-A2 so there's no point directing people there. Redirects to nonexistent pages routinely get deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. So we might as well leave the redirect where it is. — Diannaa (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

But we do have an article for JSAT Corporation where there's an entry with most details of that specific spacecraft. A better explanation of the redirect would have allowed me to correct the situation faster. Regards, — Baldusi (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying large chunks of text by SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits

Hi Diannaa,

I contact you because I saw that you recently talked to SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits about copying chunks of text from one article into another without proper attribution. Could you please also have a look at his work on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)? It seems he has previously been rewriting it in his sandbox and is now copying that to mainspace section by section. However, he has copied large chunks from various articles and seems to have made small changes so that it appears to be different. Compare for example the text of Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)#Lugal with that of the actual article on Lugal. I already did some cleanup work as some of the changes were not for the best, but it seems there's quite some copyvio going on here and I don't know how to proceed. I would also like to point out that he has done something like this on the exact same article about a year ago (see [5]). Thank you for taking the time to look into this! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations everywhere I look

Hi Diannaa, I'm writing to request your assistance with multiple articles and users, some of whom I've reported at AIV with no luck. First, much of what CSMLA (talk · contribs) has posted has been blatant copyright violation, but despite numerous warnings and a history of unacceptable edits, my report was not considered actionable. More recently, I've tagged Rich Ashooh as promotional and suffering from copyright violations, but there's been little action on similar nominations recently (more about that soon); perhaps you can confirm the extent of copied text. I've also asked that every article created by Hokagedemehin (talk · contribs) be deleted for blatant copyright violation, and asked for a userblock; this, too, was deemed not actionable, and several of the articles still stand. Perhaps nearly everyone is vacationing.

So, my frustration is fairly palpable, and of course you're in no way obliged to take care of each of these. But I respect your work here, and dropping this en masse at ANI isn't practical. Lucky you! My thanks in advance for any suggestions and assistance you can provide. 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in helping with copy vio work. I can understand your frustration as the problem is huge and it's hard to keep up with all that is going on.

• CSMLA: I have revision deleted the material on Los Americans and elsewhere and will monitor future contribs from this editor. He is now on final warning.
• Rich Ashooh: Earwig's copyvio detection tool showed 42.2 per cent overlap with the website https://www.ashoohforcongress.com/meet-rich. I have cleand out the copy vio. I think A7 speedy deletion might be an appropriate criterion as running for office alone is not enough to establish notability. I have warned the user re: copy vio.
• User:WikiDavisco added some copyvio at Obafemi Awolowo University so he has been warned. I discovered this while checking edits of Hokagedemehin. He receives the short custom warning (it's actually one of the prepared messages from User:Diannaa/Copyright) as there's already a lot of templates on his page. He too will get added to the virtual tickler file for monitoring. Thanks again for your help. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, and have a great weekend! 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You or admin stalkers

This probably needs a fast close and a possible boomerang: [6] Clear copyvio, edit-warring to remove a CSD template. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like it took two-three admins but the case is complete. Thanks for posting, — Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hence, calling your talk page stalkers too! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Greyhound articles

What is the problem with Sitush? I get a comment on my user page for good work on my latest two articles and he jumps in and insults the work. The two new articles are sourced with their original sources which is the way I am going to work from now on because of the concerns over using my own website as the source. Where does he think the original work for my website came from? He then insults me by telling the other user that he is looking to get me blocked. I suggest that you block him for attempted bullying. Racingmanager (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel on Going Bananas (film)

Howdy! Kindly nuke revision 732134467 by IP user 68.58.25.211 from 7/29/2016 at 14:32 U.S. Pacific time, which inserted a copyvio plot summary from [7]. Thanks much! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. regarding Racingmanager. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Greyhound articles

Dear Diannaa, Sitush keeps reverting the article information that I am editing. See 1927 English Greyhound Derby. Where there is a 'clarification needed' I have added the clarification only for it to be deleted constantly. He is also deleting any reference to the Barrie Dack book that I a using in the competition reports. Why is he doing this? I even added the page numbers which he initially said were missing. Please help.Racingmanager (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have added comments to the administrator page that Sitush has started. Please respond to the my concerns above, (you reply to Sitush immediately). I cannot believe that you are now claiming that I have copied another website (This website only carries Derby final information). I don't know what you want from me! I was under the impression that wikipedia wanted information and I am doing everything that is asked of me despite this harassment from Sitush and the false accusation of a blatant misrepresentation.Racingmanager (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website and suggest this as though in support of the fact on the administrator page?.Racingmanager (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suggestions for handling copyright, SPS, misrepresenting sources?. Please don't cross-post your comments here or at Sitush's talk. If I have anything to say, I will say it at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Presidency of Religious Affairs:

Much of the alleged copyright violation was in quotes. And much of the edits you have annihilated were not even alleged violations. Now I can't even go back and look at what I've written to redo the edits! Isn't this a bit heavy handed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

None of what I removed was in quotes. I left off doing the revision deletion and offered you a link to the copyvio report at 01:48 so you could check my work. Your response was to re-add the copy vio, so I went ahead with the revision deletion at 01:59. — Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about the quotes (or at least much of them), none the less a great deal of what you have not just reverted but destroyed was rewriting for clarity, form, grammar etc. and had nothing to do with text from the turkeyanalyst story. Now impossible to go back retrieve it. BoogaLouie (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I might add I was unaware you were an admin at first. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not revert; I selectively and carefully removed only the copyright material. The revision deletion is a separate transaction which hides the intervening diffs. Not all the content in those diffs was reverted. — Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Much rewriting having nothing to do with copyright has been removed. If you will allow me access to it I make improvments to the writing of the article that will have nothing to do with copyrighted material. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw your note on attribution - Will follow guidance - Question on Edits

Too easy put the attribution in comments for pasted content from linked articles. Strip club article edits are not showing on public site, and not able to determine what protection level is on the article. Was planning to do more edits, but want to know what the situation is before spending more time on the article. Are you able to check status? Thanks. Wallanon (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)